- From: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
- Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 15:29:44 +0100
- To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- CC: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
Jonathan, I'd propose to look at both GenOnt and HTTP-in-RDF ontologies and find the connections/grounding. I'll be available and would like to proceed with Neologism [1], FWIW ;) Cheers, Michael [1] http://rdfs.org/ns/http-sem/ -- Dr. Michael Hausenblas DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute National University of Ireland, Lower Dangan, Galway, Ireland, Europe Tel. +353 91 495730 http://sw-app.org/about.html http://webofdata.wordpress.com/ > From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org> > Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 10:20:30 -0400 > To: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org> > Subject: AWWSW telecon, Tues June 9 > Resent-From: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org> > Resent-Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 14:21:21 +0000 > > We have a telecon scheduled but no clear agenda. > > I think we are done with generic resources until we get input from Tim. > > We could consider what we might like to have from an ontology that > improves on genont. > > We could spend some time doing a post-mortem on last week's IRW review. > > We could attempt an overview of document requirements for whatever it > is we might produce (target Dec 2009). > > We might take another crack at a tools review since if someone in the > group wanted to work on the ontology, it wouldn't be clear how to > proceed. E.g. I might want to use Protege 4 or LSW, but wouldn't want > to mess up others if they want to use something else. > > Jonathan >
Received on Monday, 8 June 2009 14:30:24 UTC